CITY UPS ANTE IN AIRPORT GAMBIT

Mayor Richard M. Daley's announced expansion of O'Hare International Airport may lay the groundwork for what some of Mr. Daley's foes say he's wanted all along: new runways at the world's busiest airport.

But last week's announcement of a proposal to add two new terminals, as many as 25 new gates and two new customs facilities at O'Hare also could provide a boost to a plan Mr. Daley has adamantly opposed: construction of a third regional airport near south suburban Peotone.

Observers say Mr. Daley's sketchy plan -- which at this point has a robust $1-billion price tag but no funding blueprint -- has the potential to increase and eventually cap O'Hare's capacity, necessitating the eventual construction of a third regional airport.

"At some point, they need another airport. In the long run, it's the only way opportunities will be there for everybody," says Edward Faberman, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Air Carrier Assn. of America.

Mr. Faberman says he supports any increase in O'Hare capacity, and Mayor Daley says the expansion is necessary to keep up with the competition from other cities.

Yet in the long-running poker game over a third regional airport, anything the mayor proposes with regard to O'Hare is bound to be viewed as a bargaining chip.

"So, he's upping the ante," adds Mr. Faberman.

Gov. George Ryan, who made construction of a third airport a priority in his election campaign and inaugural address, appears willing to play along with Mr. Daley's plan. "The mayor's (plan) does not call for the addition of new flights at O'Hare, nor does it call for the addition of new runways at the airport," Mr. Ryan said. And therefore, it "is not inconsistent with my pledge . . . for an airport at Peotone."

While the Ryan administration's surprising support threatens to alienate some suburban constituencies, it may have struck the right chord with city officials, whose support Mr. Ryan needs to begin working toward a third airport.

"It's the kind of thing that's needed to break the gridlock (between the city and state)," says MarySue Barrett, president of the Metropolitan Planning Council, a Chicago non-profit policy group.

Ms. Barrett, a former top policy aide to Mr. Daley, sees nothing incompatible with a third airport in the city's plan, which is aimed mainly at accommodating more international flights.

The city's expansion proposal has re-energized suburban anti-noise activists, who don't see how new terminals and new gates can mean anything except new flights and, potentially, a new runway.

'Suburbs get forked'

Joseph Karaganis, attorney for the anti-noise Suburban O'Hare Commission, says the expansion plans are "part of a three-pronged approach in which the suburbs get forked.

"First, you make road improvements, then terminal improvements and then it becomes inevitable that you need new runways to serve them," he adds.

Mr. Karaganis says the city is trying to expand O'Hare in a piecemeal fashion to avoid the scrutiny of a large-scale environmental-impact study that would be required by federal law if the expansion were undertaken all at once.

The city says the plan does not call for new runways and will not increase the number of flights at O'Hare. The city has forecast a paltry 0.7% annual increase in O'Hare flights, a number the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved last month.

While the mayor's plan to build two new terminals will take years to accomplish, it's bound to figure into the ongoing congressional debate over whether to expand the hourly cap on the number of takeoffs and landings at O'Hare.

"There's sort of an indirect relationship," says Colleen Corr, a legislative aide to U.S. Rep. William Lipinski, D-Chicago, who recently called for repeal of the federal high-density rule restricting flights at O'Hare and other busy airports. "Slots are related to operations and so are gates."

A bill pending in the Senate Commerce Committee would allow 30 more flights during restricted hours at O'Hare. The expansion plan isn't viewed as being "aimed at the current debate" over that issue, Ms. Corr adds.

But that doesn't ring true for Mr. Faberman, who oversaw the high-density rule when he was an attorney at the FAA during the 1980s.

"You have to assume it means (the city expects) additional capacity to build that many gates. It assumes additional slots and additional capacity," he adds. As a result, "you would almost have to" build a new runway.

With 20 gates, "you're talking 120 departures a day, of widebodies," says Mr. Faberman. "That's a lot." O'Hare currently has about 1,200 departures a day.

Airline officials say the planned improvements are needed to handle new, larger aircraft, which take up two gates when parked at the terminals.

"If you want to operate internationally in Chicago, you have to have the space," says Robert Baker, executive vice-president of operations for Texas-based American Airlines. "Either we develop it or we leave."

United is happy

Larry Clark, vice-president of properties and facilities for United Airlines says the Elk Grove Township-based carrier needs a more efficient operation at O'Hare and is "delighted at the opportunity to redo the (customs services area)."

The city's as-yet-undecided financing plans will include a combination of tax-exempt bonds, federal airport improvement grants and special facility bonds, says Ms. Loney. She says the project is likely to cost $1 billion or more and will create at least 8,000 construction jobs.

While the project is sure to be a bonanza for contractors, Ms. Loney says all of the costs will be borne by air carriers.

Mr. Baker, however, balks at the city's $1-billion estimate. "We're a long way from that number," he says.